tv The Intelligence Report With Trish Regan FOX Business June 29, 2017 2:00pm-3:01pm EDT
we will hope to get more guidance what's next for tax reform and what's next for health care reform. here is the question. if health care doesn't happen in time, if it doesn't happen by tomorrow, and doesn't look like it really is going to move forward in a way that it wants, can tax reform still get done? that is what he will have to tell reporters right now when he speaks. meanwhile, we're asking a question that was proposed by an op ed in "the wall street journal" today,
very interesting one, whether or not it is time for president trump to abandon the republican party. in other words you have holdouts in the party not doing him any good at all. maybe he needs to think about cutting them loose. president trump to make good on campaign promise to put national security first. in parts of president trump's travel order will go into effect a all of this as house votes on two key bills aimed at keeping illegal immigrants out of america, keeping americans safe. back to our top story right now, markets selling off as we look whether or not this deal will go through. you have republican senators scrambling last minute, trying to come up with something on health care by tomorrow. can they do it? joining us with insight, former lieutenant governor of new york, betsy mccaughey, and ford o'connell. betsy, what is the inside scoop?
are they going to come up with anything before friday? >> i would not underestimate mitch mcconnell and republicans and president know how critically important it is to get the health care bill moved to a conference with the house bill which was passed just a few days ago. this is vital because this, in the eyes of many is our only chance to repeal and replace obamacare and move on to tax reform which is vital for national recovery. economic recovery. trish: everybody agrees. tax reform needs to get done. some kind of repeal of obamacare needs to get done in that it has been disasterous for american business, small business owners and individual mandate is something that the president campaigned on. he promised this would be gone. we would restore some kind of normalcy with health care markets. as we look at the market, we're seeing a step selloff, nearly there on the dow jones industrial average.
there is trepidation now that it is not going to happen. what realistically can be accomplished between now and tomorrow? >> i'm not sure a lot can be accomplished between you now and tomorrow. look, they have got to get this done as i said over and over, entire package by september 30th. they're under constraints of budget reconciliation. i agree with betsy here. congressional rerepublicans need to understand. this is binary choice. if you don't pass something you will essentially further socialized medicine. if you have to cut a deal with the democrats, guess what, trish, we'll not get rid of taxes that kill jobs or not get rid of employer mandate which kills jobs. we'll move health care closer to single-payer and the va that is basically what will happen. they have to realize failure is not an option. if they let this go by the wayside. they will have less for tax reform. trish: i will jump in. sarah huckabee sanders to see
what she will say on health care and a few other things. >> regarding a recent announcement on sanctions. always i will be back to answer your questions. >> thank you. today the trump administration is continuing its efforts against the government of north korea. despite multiple u.n. security council resolutions imposing international sanctions, the government of north korea continues its nuclear and ballistic missile programs. today treasury's financial crimes enforcement network has found the bank of dandong to be a foreign financial institution of primary money laundering concern under section 311 of the usa patriot act. this bank served as a gate he way for north korea to access the u.s. and international financial systems, facilitating
millions of dollars of transactions for companies involved in north korea's nuclear and ballistic missile programs. the united states will not for such action. this requires u.s. banks to insure the bank of dandong does not access the u.s. financial system directly or indirectly through other foreign banks. this action reaffirms the treasury department's commitment to insure that north korea is cut off from the u.s. treasury system. we sanctioned two individuals and one entity for their continued support of north korea's activities. while today's actions are directed at chinese individuals and entities, we look forward to continue to work closely with the government of china to stop
illicit financing involving north korea. we are in no way targeting china with these actions. we will be meeting with china and other countries of the g20 next week to further our efforts to cut off north korea's illicit activities. north korea's provocative, destablizing and inhumane behavior will not be tolerated we are committed to targeting north korea's enablers and maximizing economic pressure on the regime until it ceases its nuclear and ballistic missile programs. with that i would be happy to answer any questions. >> secretary, thank you very much on north korea. recently congressman introduced north korea travel ban. do you, do you -- [inaudible] north korea travel ban? >> i have no comment on on today
although i will say we continue to look at a range of optionses that we're very serious about stopping their activity. >> can you quantify the financial activity you're trying to stop today and access, direct, indirect this particular bank with the u.s. financial markets. >> this is very significant that this is the first bank we cut off under this. we will con it to look at these actions and continue to roll out sanctions. as i said in this case it is millions of dollars but we're committed to cutting off all illegal funds going to north korea. >> mr. secretary -- >> when we put sanctions -- >> what are you doing now, what are you trying to stop? >> this bank will not be able to access the u.s. financial system directly or indirectly. so it's a very significant action. >> mr. secretary, you made clear this is not punishment against china but obviously the
white house wants to put pressure on beijing to take action with north korea. are you satisfied china will see it that way and what china is doing currently against north korea? >> president trump and president xi had productive conversations about north korea. we appreciate their work. we hope they will continue to work with us. notwithstanding that, we are taking these actions to show the seriousness in which we are going to deal with this. in the back. >> thank you, mr. secretary. can you talk more about the link between the specific bank and the government of north korea? we're trying to get a better picture what exactly they were funding in north korea? >> i'm not going to go into the specifics of that because it does involve certain intelligence but again i can tell you we have very specific intelligence and again, we will follow the money and cut off the money. >> mr. secretary, would you be able to explain, i know you did research, the actual economic impact this is going to have on
the north koreans and how that economic impact negatively may cause them a change in their position? >> well i think as you know in iran the sanctions were very effective. that is what iran to the table. we will continue to work with our allies and we will continue to speak to people at the g20. we're firmly committed to work with other nations to cut off illicit financing. >> mr. secretary, was china given a heads up in any way about the action you're announcing today, and you used a term in your statement, is china an enabler as it relates to north korea? >> again i'm not going to comment specifically on our behind of scenes conversations. wee obviously had very productive conversations with them. as i said this is not directed at china. this is directed at a bank as well as individual entities in china. whether they are china or anyone
else we will continue with sanctions. >> did north korea move their assets from this particular bank to another bank in china? are they -- >> again if we find other activity, we will sanction other entities. nobody is off limit. >> just quick follow up on china. you characterized whether china doing enough, president tweeted i greatly appreciate the universities of president xi in china to help with north korea it hasn't worked out. sounds like he is giving up on china. has he? >> i don't think the president is giving up. we will continue to work with china and everyone else. the president is firmly commit we will cut the money off to north korea until they behave properly. >> if you don't mind, different topic. one, how much do you feel china can actually move the needle. as far as, tax reform. you say you have folks at
treasury department dealing with that issue? are there any contingency plans in case health care doesn't get done and janet yellen, is the administration considering her to remain federal reserve chair. >> that is awful lot of questions. no decisions have been made with regard to the fed chair. gary cohn and i at some point will make recommendations to the president. but no decisions have been made on that. in regards to tax reform, as you heard gary and i say we're very committed to get tax reform done this year. it is one of the president's top priority for economic growth. i think the people of america understand that, that we need economic growth. we're committed to doing that. i expect health care hopefully will get done but regardless we're getting to tax reform done. you had so many questions, i forgot your first one. >> let me follow up with you on tax reform, if you don't mind. paul ryan said today things are on track.
why should the american public believe things are on track when we see he what is going on with health care reform and timeline is getting pushed? >> why shouldn't the american public believe it? of course they should believe it. we said that. chairman ryan said it. chairman hatch sad it. we're all 100% committed to getting tax reform done this year. >> mr. secretary, in february you received a letter from lawmakers suggesting that the treasury department should consider sanctioning the bank of china. my question, have you reconsidered that idea? do you think that idea is on the table? the second question i had is about the debt ceiling. my understanding is of the debt ceiling drop dead time for you all is october. does that give congress additional time in your mind, or would you still like them to act earlier? >> i haven't given any specifics in regards to the drop-dead date. what i said i hope congress acts before they leave. we do have contingency plans if
they don't so that the market shouldn't be concerned. but again, i think for the benefit of everybody, sooner that they do this the better. as it relates to banks, again, i think as you have seen we've taken very significant action today. we will continue to take very significant action rolling out additional sanctions on north korea until they stop their behavior. >> one question on indirect access to the banking system. are you aware of other banks providing similar access to north korea in the international financial system and what other banks are you prepared to tack actions against going forward? >> let me say we have a team of people in treasury and working with the intelligence agencies and as we see other banks or individuals or entities you can expect we will continue to roll out additional sanctions. this is something we take very seriously. we will have discussions with our counterparties at g20. this is big priority of ours.
>> mr. secretary, you said it is not about targeting china but this is aimed at a chinese bank. does it speak to a message you're trying to send to china any way, specifically, right before the g20, or is this really an indication how limited your options are dealing with north korea directly. >> i wouldn't say in any way it is limited in what our options are. quite the contrary. we are committed and we will work with everybody and nothing's off the table. where we see illicit financing we will stop it. and there is no message before the g20. the message to everybody at the g20 is. this is serious issue. we'll work with everybody. if there is illicit financing going on we'll cut it off from the u.s. financial system which has significant impact. >> follow up. you say no way message was not aimed at china? >> i say no way is this aimed at china. we'll continue to work with
them. this is about north korea and how serious we're taking this. whether it is china or anybodies we will take this seriously. >> are you going -- [inaudible] >> i will not make any comment about that. >> you say quote, the president is firmly committed we will cut of money off to north korea until they behave properly. how are you defining success with that? what are you exactly looking for? >> i think you will know success when you see it. >> i'm asking how do you and administration -- >> i think everybody will know success. their behavior is unacceptable. and it will be very clear, kind of, we want them to stop doing tests, ballistic missile programs and others. it is very clear. >> mr. secretary i want to ask you something that a lot of people don't understand and you're uniquely qualified to explain, the administration and congress are saying there will be $321 billion in savings from the health care bills that are out there, but isn't that
because people and benefits will, are being taken away? so isn't this really just a takeaway? >> not at all, okay? one of the flaws of the scoring, on the cbo, on this when you look at number of people, again there is a lot of people, when given the option will decide not to elect to take this health care because it's a bad he deal. that doesn't mean people are losing health care. i think everybody knows obamacare was just a giant tax hike on the economy. it slowed down the economy. it is another reason why we continued to have sub2% growth for the last eight years. this administration is 100% focused on creating economic growth, creating jobs, creating proper wages, and getting this economy back to 3% or higher. yes, right here in the front. >> first of all, congratulations. >> thank you very much. >> i have a couple of finance questions. talk about, if push came to
shove, would you advise for prioritizing debt payments or not? do you believe a review of chinese invests into the u.s. should be more careful or more involved? >> again let me make a comment on cfius. i do chair cfius. i take it very seriously. i can tell you reviews are very careful, very involved no matter who is on the other side. it is very important for national security and we will use that to the maximum powers. and in regards to prioritization, again, i think that congress should act quickly, raise the debt ceiling. we should pay our debts on time. >> thank you, mr. secretary. i was going to say congratulations too. >> thank you. >> two questions. first, you were a participant along with madam lagarde at last imf bank meeting. there was some concern about what the future u.s. policy is towards involvement with the
international monetary fund. what is the u.s. policy towards that and toward involvement in financial relief in the eurozone? >> so, let me just say i've had the pleasure of meeting with christine at least a dozen times. i think the imf plays a very important role in looking at currency, world economies. the imf was very helpful in regards to stablizing the greece situation, working with europe. i think that could have been a major problem this summer that would have had significant concerns to the markets and economy. i think she was a very important part of those negotiations. >> well, my second question was, how do you feel about maintaining the u.s. level of support at the imf from current level, and specifically as a part of the relief for greece because the u.s. role is through the imf, in relief of the greek financial crisis?
>> let me just comment. the imf commitment to greece was quite small. not even sure greece will necessarily use that so i think the significance more of a stamp of approval. again there is no direct cost to the u.s. or the taxpayers. and we're supportive of the imf, although we'll look at our contributions to the imf, like we look at all contributions very carefully, making sure we're spending taxpayer money properly. in the back, yes. >> clarify which entities are being sanctioned because the paperwork that opac including shipping, two chinese individuals. does not mention the bank of dandong in that paperwork. is there four actions. >> there is fincen action against the bank of dandong and three ofac sanctions as you pointed out. >> [inaudible]
>> fincen and release on the bank. >> did you talk to beijing? >> i'm not making any comments behind the scenes how we communicate. >> you're a mathematical man. what are the chances we get a 15% corporate tax rate or 25% corporate tax rate in the final bill? >> let me just comment. tax reform is pass-fail exercise, okay? and we're going to get this passed for a plan that is good for the american public. so we're working closely with the house and the senate and we're going to get a bill that passes great for this economy, great for americans, putting people back to work. >> revenue neutral? >> how is it possible for reducing the funding source for health care to lead to lower premiums and expanded coverage? >> again, i'm here primarily to talk about sanctions and tax reform but i will comment again
on health care, although it is not my primary area. the health care that has been in place is a bad deal for the american public, okay? that is why a lot of people aren't using it, okay? it was a giant tax hike to the american economy and premiums have been going up a ton. we're looking making the system more competitive so people can actually a afford it. >> we heard from the counterpart at homeland security that airports all offer the world have to step up aviation security because there is this threat. this is the product of a months long discussion within the inneragency process that resulted in -- [inaudible]. i'm wondering, if you, sir, potential security risks, are you satisfied that the security risks outweighs any potential economic risk if, for example, certain airlines are cut off for certain airports are cut off if they don't comply? >> let me just say. i can think of nobody better than general kelly to protect
our country in this position. again, i've had the opportunity to discuss these issues with him at the national security coins you sill. i'm not going to comment specifically but let me make it clear, the safety of the american public is our utmost concern. we will never, ever, put economic issues, okay, where we risk the lives of the american public. >> mr. secretary, on tax reform, are you going to be revenue neutral? if the cbo and j.t. t say you don't get growth or revenue what are you going to do? >> okay, again, let me just first say that there will be complete transparency when we come out with the plan. we're in the process of listening sessions. we literally met with hundreds and hundreds of ceos, think tanks, various different groups. i was over at the house twice today, talking with people at house of representatives with groups. we've been in the senate.
we're listening. as we developed the plan, we said we will have a responsible plan that is paid for and we do believe in dynamic scoring. we will take that into account. >> mr. secretary, gdp first quarter came out 1.4%, slightly better than economists anticipated. but during the campaign the president repeatedly promised growth rates of 3 and 4%. two questions, first. what, how much of that 1.4% is attributable to actions of this administration or inactions? secondly when will we start seeing the 3 to 4% growth rate the president promised. >> again i've been very clear what our projections are for growth and that we believe we can get to 3% or higher gdp. we've been very clear that that is not this year. it is not next year. it will take some time to scale n our projection over the 10-year period is actually 2.9% which i think is quite conservative. scaling up to three and staying there, which both the president
and i believe we can do, better than 3%. so our projections in the budget are quite conservative. i think that to the extent we can get health care passed, to the extent we get tax reform passed, to the extent we roll back regulatory issues which we're working on very carefully both in financial and in energy and in other areas, we are very comfortable that we will hit these growth projections. i take two more questions, i will have to turn it over to the superstar over here. yes. >> thank you. the president said before that if china is not going to help solve the north korea problem, then u.s. will. he made clear that he doesn't think that china is currently doing enough. so where does he stand on the u.s. seeking unilateral action? if there are deadlines, such as g20, maybe ultimatum or deadlines for which the u.s. would need, sorry, that china
would need to do more? >> i think the president has made it very clear that if there are deadlines, he is not going to advertise those deadlines. so i am not going to make any specific comments as to whether he has a deadline, or, if he has a deadline, when it is. that would make absolutely no sense. i can assure you we will have conversations with our g20 counterparts about this next week. and we have been having these conversations. we will continue to do more on this. one more question. right here. >> there was a little bit after legislative snafu but appears house and senate will pass sanctions legislation related to russia, includes a broad range of sanctions. i don't think we've gotten a straight answer from the white house whether the president supports that. does the administration support that? is treasury prepared to implement those sanctions. >> let me be clear, not only sanctions on north korea today. we have sanctions on iran
already. we will continue to put more sanctions on iran around their ballistic missile and other programs. we've used sanctions in other areas. we'll continue to use these. notwithstanding anything congress passes, i can assure you, this administration and the treasury department will use sanctions to the maximum amount available by law. we don't need congress to tell us to put on more. we will do more whether they tell us or not. we will, russia sanctions, we have plenty of those on as well. again, thank you everybody. a pleasure to be here. trish: all right, everyone, we were listening to steve mnuchin talking about new sanctions on the bank of dandong. this is north korea to play ball. you go after them he -- via money of course. there is money filtering through the chinese bank filtering through north korea. his goal is to stifle that.
he did also say he is very much is focused, entire administration is focused on getting the economy going again, 100% focused he said. job growths. economic growth of 3% or better, and tax reform. so tax reform still very much on the agenda despite concerns among some market watchers who are looking at a dow off 157 points off the lows of the session. if they will care doesn't happen, that makes it challenging to get some other things through. that is why policy issues are incredibly important for the nation and our economy. you're looking at sarah huckabee sanders. she is addressing the media. we do he anticipate she will get regarding president's tweets. he tweeted at two msnbc morning show hosts, specifically targeting the woman, accusing her of having plastic surgery saying that her face was bleeding when she allegedly
wanted to spend some time with her co-host and with donald trump at mar-a-lago. that has taken the twitter world by storm. critics are saying on both sides of the aisle, the president went too far on this one. i'd agree with those critics. he went absolutely too far on this one. it has become a big distraction. now the world is talking about his tweets, instead of talking about health care reform and tax reform. i'm joined by the whole crew. we're still here with betsy. we have ford and robin. robin you didn't have a chance to talk earlier. i want to get you into this conversation here as we wait what will probably be a bit of a fireworks display between these journalists and sarah huckabee sanders right now. your thoughts on the president's tweets? >> the president's tweets? well, i agree with you, they were completely inappropriate. to go against a woman, you know, if she had some work done, that should be her business, not
should be broadcast news against her. basically, "morning joe" was accusing him of bullying. he proved them to be true today with that, especially calling, accusing of them all having low i.q. accusing one of them being a psycho. these are, these are, as i agree with you, trish, these are distractions. we have so much serious business to do. i get concerned when he tweets these kind of -- trish: wait a second. >> betsy? >> wait a second. mica and joe repeatedly called donald trump the president of the united states a liar and a thug. whatever they got, they deserve. trish: ford is upset. are you you making noise or robin? >> let me say one thing. he needs to push back on mica and joe, but this is not how you do it. this is certainly not how you do it as a president. he should use surrogates go after them like pitbulls in reality they're actually bullying him and the
administration with their constant talk of russian collusion and everything else under the sun. i get need to push back on them. this is not how you do it. you're correct, trish, it takes away from tax reform and other important items. in future he needs to be a little bit more careful and not really tweet off the top of his head, but tweet with purposeful message. trish: betsy is making that point. they have taken aim at him. frankly entire media taken aim at him in a way been unrivaled historically. we haven't seen anything quite like this. however, however, he is still the president of the united states. and taking to twitter and saying those kinds of things about someone, you know, two wrongs don't make a right here, betsy. >> that's true. trish: let's not forget. he is the president, with that goes certain decorum. you're a morning show host. you say these things. it is not nice, and they shouldn't do it and should be more respectful, yeah, however,
he has taken it to a new low. >> ford is right, it is unfortunate we're even discussing this when we are at a critical point and need to get this health care bill passed. and, in my view, the reason it hasn't passed is largely the result of demagoguery. that the opponents of medicaid reform have made false claims that this will cost people their lives, this is mean, when in fact few americans probably realize that half of all the women who give birth in the united states now have medicaid pick up the tab. there are 75 million people on medicaid, and according to the cbo, it will soon be 86 million. that is hardly a safety net. that explosive enrollment in medicaid is, making it hard for people who need it to get it. trish: we have a tweet just crossing from jeb bush, weighing in on this morning's twitter activities, he writes, inappropriate, undignified, unpresidential,
@realdonaldtrump. he is calling him out too. this, ford, will serve to give his critics more ammunition. >> that is absolutely right, and that is what he needs to avoid. he needs to prove his critics wrong because he sold himself as jobs president who can get things done. he needs deliverables right now. he doesn't need to punch back. his face may enjoy the fact he hit back at two msnbc hosts but at some point you have to put the country before your personal squabbles. if you look back at kennedy school study, media bias and donald trump presidency is downright unreal. look at last six weeks of major networks spending 640 minutes total news and 353 on russian collusion. trish: first he question coming for sarah huckabee. >> no secret that this particular program is very critical of him. nature of tweets drawn condemnation from capitol hill,
speak he have the house, senator graham, senator collins, allies of the president is this deeply personal in nature. >> i don't think so. the president has been attacked personally merslously on personal accounts of people in the program. when he gets hit, he will get hit back. he is elected somebody who is tough and a fighter. the things this show has called him, not just him, numerous members of his staff, including myself and many others, are very deeply personal. so to then turn and pretend like, you know this, approach is, i guess it is kind of like we're living in "the twilight zone." they do this day after day after day. then the president responds and defends himself and everybody is
appalled and blown away. frankly if this had happened in the previous administration, that the type of attacks launched on this program, the things they say, utterly stupid, personality disorder, mentally ill, constant personal attacks, calling multiple members liars, liars to their faces while sitting on their program, the rest of the media would have said guy, no way, hold on. but nobody does that. but the president, he is not going to step back. showed that. and that is exactly what he did today. >> if i could can follow on that sarah, i follow on that, couple of critsystems from supporters of the president, this particular tweet was beneath the dignity of the office. where does the president draw the line on dignity of the office? >> look, i think that shows that every day in the decisions that he is making, focus on priorities he laid out in his agenda, but he is not going to sit back and be attacked by liberal media, hollywood elites.
when they hit him he will hit back. >> sarah, i have a health care he question, on this, one other aspect of it, some suggested in their tweet, response or public announcements today that the president misconstrued one of the messages should have been gathered from shooting that involved steve scalise and others, that the hostility of the verbal environment can create an atmosphere of violence. i'm not saying that, members of congress said that about particular tweet. that episode affected president and those here at white house personally very importantly and deeply. do you have any reaction to that sentiment that conversations like this create an atmosphere that is either dangerous or one we need to avoid? >> the president in no way, form or fashion or ever promoted or encouraged violence. if anything quite the contrary. he was simply pushing back and defending himself. >> health care question.
i have a health care question. so you talked about the president's over all priorities, last night, late last night, as part of the amendment and evolution of the senate draft, $45 billion put on the table for opioid treatment and health savings accounts, can be used according to this new draft to pay premiums in the future. does the support president those two initiatives? why does he believe they make the bill better? does he believe opioid allocation will be sufficient? many people do not, to address that problem? >> i'm not going to negotiate details, back and forth in public but i can tell you the president has obviously made fighting the opioid crisis a priority for him, and i would imagine he would be supportive of pushing resources towards that. >> how about health savings accounts? >> we're always looking for ways to additional flexibilities and something certainly to be considered. >> what about republicans criticizing the president?
>> i want to go back to the shooting and remember what president trump said then. he said, our country will perhaps become closer, more unified, so important. does his tweet this morning, his series of tweets help to unify the country? >> again, kristin, i think i asked and this question has been answered it several times. >> does it unify the country to do what he said wanted to see happen in the wake of shooting? >> again i think the president is pushing back against people who attack him day after day after day. where is the outrage on that? you guys are constantly coming and asking like is this okay? he does it one time. this is day after day after day. not just the president. the only person that i see a war on is this president and everybody that works for him. >> two questions, follow-up on that. i understand your point but he is the president of the united states. they are cable news anchors. so he has to stand to a higher
standard, one. two you talk about criticism, he said that former president obama wasn't born in this country, right? so he clearly was a part of criticizing, the past president, who was not immune to criticism himself. i wonder how you make that argument? >> again i'm, i think i've been pretty clear when the president gets hit he will hit back harder, what he did back today. >> higher standard than cable news anchor? doesn't he have to meet higher standard than cable news anchor? >> i don't you can expect someone to be personally attacked day after day, and minute by minute, to sit back. the american people elected a fighter. they didn't elect somebody to sit back and do nothing. they knew what they were getting when they voted for donald trump. he won overwhelmingly. >> how is assaulting a woman on twitter a fighter? >> how about impact of statements on this about -- marist poll, 68% of registered voters say the president's tweets are reckless and distracting.
only 22% say they're effective and informative. republicans on this question split down the middle. half of republicans say they're reckless and distracting. so how can you argue that this is something the president must do? >> i answered this question yesterday and in regards to the poll. i think anytime the president has a chance to speak directly to the american people it's a good thing. >> how do you feel about the president attacking another woman, specifically for her looks? what does that show as an example how men should be weighting to other women? >> look everybody wants to make this an attack on a woman and, what about the constant attacks that he receives or the rest of it? i'm a woman. i've been attacked by the show multiple times. but i don't cry foul because of it. i think that you know, you want to create this false narrative and one hand is like let's treat everybody equally and on the other hand, they attack attack attack, he responds apparently that is wrong.
i've answered this question. >> trying to get to the point being made. >> this is the point been made. i'm not sure why we're continuing talking -- >> president and fighter. can you talk about being personally affected by all of this as well. nothing is wrong with the president fighting fire with fire is argument that you're making. i would ask this to you, personal level, you have stood her talked about your family at podium. will you tell your kids this behavior is okay? >> look i've been asked before, when it comes to roll models, as a person ever faith, i think we all have one perfect role he model. when i'm asked that question, i point to god. i point to my faith. and that is where i tell my kids to look. none of us are perfect. certainly there is only one that is. that is where i would point that direction. >> i want to ask follow-up question is on policy points with the g20 coming up. >> that would be a change in tone. policy. >> i agree with that.
ask about his meeting with president putin coming up next week, just been confirmed, h.r. mcmaster. definitive answer whether the president will bring up election interference? clearly biggest topic between u.s. and russia, the fact moscow meddled with the election of the is the president going to press putin on that? >> obviously i will not get made of president's conversation as we typically do, i imagine we'll have a readout after the conversation takes place. john? >> thanks. >> i quill come to you next. >> thanks a lot, sarah. president as tweet today, does it help legislative agenda? does it help win votes of nine senators who come out against that senator bill, senator collins, senator murkowski for instance? what is your view on that? >> again, i think we're just looking for new ways to rephrase this question. the president was attacked he responded. there is nothing more i have to add to that. >> legislative agenda, i'm not
asking about tweet, i'm asking about whether or not this helps his legislative agenda? >> i think the president would love for us all to focus on the legislative agenda a whole lot more. over you look at coverage over the last month of extended period between may and june, all of the major networks, if you looked at their coverage, what they're talking about, they spent one minute in the evening newscasts talking about tax reform. three minutes on infrastructure. five minutes on the economy and jobs. 17 minutes on health care. and 3533 minutes, 353 minutes -- 353 minutes, attacking president and pushing false narrative on russia. look at that in comparison. if you guys want to talk about legislative agenda, and focus on policy, and priorities you guys get to help set that table. and 353 minutes of attacks against the president and driving a false narrative.
and one minute on tax reform. that is over the course of a month. that is, numbers, numbers don't lie. the media is focused on priorities that don't line up with theories of america. right now, we've got our economy is growing. stock market is up. unemployment is down. jobs are back. isis on the run. america is winning and that is what we like to talk about. but you guys constantly ignore the narrative. go ahead, john. >> all of those, element of president's agenda certainly true. all of those things are true. but the president today put out this tweet which takes away from all of that, you expect us to, here in room to simply ignore that. i think that is the valid question that should be asked of you right now. should you ignore this entirely? >> he put out number of tweets on health care, on the immigration bills that will be in the house today. but that is not talked about. that is not being asked about.
but the discrepancy again, 353 minutes. you can't say that you want to talk about policy and then you look at the numbers and they just don't lie. you can't expect for that amount of attack and intensity to come on a president and him never to respond. john gizzy. i said i was going to john next. >> two questions for you, sarah. first, did the u.s. administration send a representative, to the funeral mass for chancellor kohl or send anyone to the official service july 1st? >> i do believe there is official delegation. i have to get details back on that. >> the question is this, people turn down nomination to be deputy secretary of the treasury. president is on his third appointee i believe for secretary it of the army, and, ambassador of ireland declined nomination.
there is no candidates for ambassador to germany or france. both major allies. or greece for that matter, important country. is the president having trouble recruiting people to fill some of the key slots that remain unfilled after six months? >> no. john. actually the trouble isn't in the recruitment. it is in the vetting and getting them through the process. like i mentioned yesterday, there are over, i believe 100 candidates in the queue waiting to be pushed through but due to the historic obstruction it is taking much longer than normal to get a lot of those nominees through. frankly a lot of people that are part of that process, one of the number one reasons we had people take a step back is because that process is so lengthy. and, hold on i have got a skype question from chris byrd in north dakota. we'll go to that one. >> hey, sarah. thank you so much. i don't want to -- talking about
make america great. part of that energy prominence and -- during the pipeline protests had pretty scary times. just a couple weeks ago, a judge -- [inaudible] my question is this. what specifically is -- going to do to give the company more certainty, clarity as they make these multibillion-dollar infrastructure -- trish: we promised there would be some fireworks or at least anticipated there would be fireworks and indeed there were a lot of fireworks, that you heard sarah huckabee sanders insisting this is president when punched, he had been repeatedly punched, she emphasized by the "morning joe" anchors on msnbc, he is going to street back. as you heard many reporters say over and over again, the concern is that he is striking back in a
way beneath the dignity of the office. so you can anticipate that is an agenda point that will be deliberated over and over and over again as it gives a lot of fodder, shall we say to some of his critics. joining me response, what she just heard republican congresswoman marcia blackburn of tennessee. good to see you, congresswoman. >> good to see you, trish. trish: there are important things that need to get done, tax reform. we just heard from the treasury secretary, he is committed to it, he says, but you know those tweets this morning are taking people off in a different direction. your reaction to them? are you disappointed he tweeted those things? >> i would rather him have not tweeted those. as i would tell my children many times growing up, sometimes there are things that are better left unsaid. and right now, our focus is getting health care bill finished. it is on tax reform.
it is on broadband and infrastructure expansion. it is on a energy plan for our nation that is all of the above energy plan. those are things that, which we in the house are trying to deliver on. we want -- trish: congresswoman, do his actions in any way make it more difficult for you to move forward with the agenda? >> it does not. the house is, the house is moving forward with our agenda. we would like for the president to take the time tweeting about accomplishment that we're seeing and things we're doing for the american people. to deliver on promises that were made. and i think that this is something that it allows attention and airtime to go to things that are not going to push us forward on that agenda. trish: like you said you wouldn't have done it. >> wouldn't have done it. trish: there are important policy items that need to be taken care of. what you are you hearing in terms of health care? i want to point out to our viewers markets recovered a
little bit off the lows of the session down still 166 points however, and the concern here, congresswoman, that the senate will not be able to come forward with something by tomorrow. that friday deadline now looming effectively 24 hours away. what are your sources within the senate telling you about what they might be able to, or not be able to do? >> right. i talked to other members. i think the senate is looking at adding some components that would be appealing to some of the conservatives. and, then also looking at beefing up some of the provisions around the specifics that deal with the opioid abuse, and the crisis that we have there. we already have provisions in place, trish, that we passed. tara, which deals with the opioid issues and the drug issues. woe have the funding that go
into state innovation grants. the vehicles for allowing that funding already exists. trish: are you disappointed in some of the changes the senate has made? you think about preexisting conditions for example? i do want to point out to viewers, sarah huckabee sanders walking out of the room there. she had a pretty tough press conference to deal with reporters, who, you know basically were fed some ammunition there this morning with those tweets. but congresswoman, in terms much the changes that were made by the senate, what is your reaction to those? >> the, my reaction is, i want the senate to finish their bill and get it back to us, so that we know what they're going to pass out of there. once we have that, then we'll be able to react, whatever their final bill is. we understand that what they want to do is change some of the formulary dealing with medicaid. they want to make the block grant proposal an option, rather
than something the system gravitates to. there are things we can work with, to turn us back toward patient-centered health care, which is our goal. making certain we turn this corner and we give individuals the ability to direct their health care, their health care choices, an insurance that is going to be affordable and usable. trish: well, we'll see whether or not it happens. thank you so much, marcia blackburn, good to see you, congresswoman. go back to the panel. betsy mccaughey, ford o'connell and robin biro, along with foundation for liberty, american greatness founder nick adams. i would like to get your reaction, nick to what we heard there. obviously it was a difficult press conference for sarah sanders huckabee. she took it in stride. handled it well. by performance accounts did a very good job. handed a difficult set of facts
given the president got unwelcomed attention via tweet this morning. >> never a dull day, trish. lots happened today. i'm sure lots will happen again tomorrow. look this is the way that president trump operates. anybody that has watched him, anybody that observed him, knows that this is precisely how he responds, and how he reacts when he feels that he is being attacked, he does fight fire with fire. in light of the situation right now in america, there is a war for american values. there is a kind of war that is raging and i've got to say, i'm one of these people thinks that the president should keep tweeting. i wouldn't have tweeted what he tweeted this morning. it is not my style but i do think that he is responding to some very unsavory people that really have been saying some awful things and quite frankly, in some way, i do think that they do deserve it. trish: yeah, but, well, by the president of the united states?
i mean, ford, where are the surrogates on this one, right? let them punch as hard as they want to punch, do you really want to muddy yourself in those waters? >> should absolutely be left to the surrogate. let's understand the point sarah sanders was making here. it is real point. the media wound itself. stop reporting the news. it has become full-time trump critics. when the president, talk about beneath digs nil of the president. they have to talk about the beneath of dignity of their own profession. they have contributed a lot to they choose not to focus on topics important to people, what they want to focus on. they're driving public opinion. i don't blame donald trump except this case for pushing back on them. because they are solely going against it. you saw the point sarah was making. you and i have been talking about tax reform almost over a year now. in the network news, out of 640 minutes, they spent 19 minutes on that and 353 minutes pushing a trump conspiracy story? you've got to be kidding me.
trish: you think back, to the difference, whether i was thinking back, i was not really around for this, at least in a way that i could comprehend it, but when you think back to nixon, and for example, that reporting that you saw, that time, those were a couple reporters that were really not trusted or, they had to come forward with a whole lot more evidence, shall we say what you're seeing in today's media. bob woodward recognizes this. he in fact just blasted the media saying, and i'm going to quote here, tone matters. headlines matter. you want people to trust you, i think kind of a brief, deeply fair-mindedness is essential. you know, he is basically here saying that this is not okay for members of the media to be as aggressive as they have been, this is sort of really flippant attitude. >> not just in morning banter.
i would, i would apply the same criticism to in general, the media coverage of the debate over the senate and house health bills. i haven't heard media remind viewers even once, that anyone who is currently on medicaid is grandfathered in. instead they repeat again and again the, what the critics of the medicaid reform say, claiming that people are going to lose their health care and maybe their lives. they're ramping up criticism and fear rather than reporting accurately. trish: so, you know, woodward is making this point basically where, ford, that the american media has now lost the trust of everyday people in a very big way, because they're hitting hard often in ways that are very challenging obviously for some to hear, and they're speaking on a level that doesn't really relate, say, to the people in
the middle of the country. that said, i'm not forgiving anything here. he did a lousy thing tweeting out what he did, and he shouldn't have done it. >> approval rating of and trust in the media is around 27%. pond scum, meter maids and lawyers are beneath that. gets to the point about woodward and bernstein. there is no more journalistic ethics. they are opinion commentators like me and pushing this as news. unfortunately people are getting the shaft in this whole deal. they're becoming cheerleaders for liberal causes, not saying here's the facts, readers, here's the facts viewers, here is what you to decide what is better for your family and your wallet. they are state tv controlling your very thought. thank god a lot of people unfortunately turned off and reading themselves and boning up themselves. trish: they're finding different outlets. robin, because we do believe in
always making sure both sides are here, part of our job right now. you heard what ford is saying. give me your cents where the media is? has it gotten too out of control? >> i agree with majority of what both of you has said. i would say this is largely about ratings, sadly. they know this drama drives up-rates. but i agree with you, middle americans and actually, my own party will kill me for saying this, i agree with what sarah huckabee sanders said, middle america cares much more about infrastructure right now and health care than the issue of russia. i trust fbi to do their job. trish: they care more about those things than what what donald trump he tweeted this morning? i am not excusing what he did and it is awful tweet but to most americans it is not an issue that they care about.
>> in some cases i think we've become desensitized to that. we almost expect it. and that's sad. i don't really like that fact. i'm used to looking at my phone getting crazy tweets from donald trump. i think we all are. trish: single-handedly saving the company because twitter was on. >> trish, tell you one thing, if donald trump did manners like mitt romney, would have lost the election and crushed by the media on everything he says. the problem with the media doesn't agree with your position, they're out to slime you. i hope this changes as former reporter and member of the national press club. i don't think it is going to. trish: what does it mean for the agenda, ford.
afternoon, everyone. we are down 152 points. we'll see how that shakes out as we get into the last hour. liz, over to you. liz: trish, a rock 'n' roll hour that we are expecting in this final 60 minutes of trade. investors can thank treasury secretary steven mnuchin at this hour for the fact that these numbers on your screen are not a lot worse. the dow had been down more than 250 points before mnuchin took the mic a half hour ago on the back of a tech and a fed head who at 1:00 p.m. eastern publicly through water on a possible third hike. the dow clawing back more than 100 points as the treasury secretary firmly announced during the press conference that tax reform will get done whether a health care plan is passed. at a close, the dow tanking by 257